Why are people so against private landlords?

[StopRainingNow]

I don't get it (and I'm not a landlord), no one shouts at Tesco that it is disgusting that they make money off selling something (food) to people on UC, when people need food TO literallysurvive/ live. But if someone has a business renting houses to people who need them, they are the devil. It makes no sense to me.

To make it worse, Tesco are also making profits by not paying a living wage to employees who then have to claim UC to top up their salaries and so benefit from profit from employees and customers.

Why do private landlords get such a hard time? They are providing a service to people that need it - AIBU?

Why did you rent such a shithole in the first place?

& @Marshmallow4545

Sorry this is all so wrong, no one forced someone to take out a mortgage and buy a house to rent out when rates were 1 or 2% - rates then trebled, mostly due to Liz Truss and then they found their little goldmine had become an expensive disaster.
Made worse by inflation on repair costs.

Even if they make no monthly profit, their mortgage is being paid by someone else, in 25years, they'll have a nice nest egg to sell, chucking someone out of their home.

The problem in the UK is that rents are very high, with an unregulated private rent market that has been used by both Lab and Con governments to provide social housing, with little enforcement of standards.

Why should anyone have sympathy for people who went into the rental market purely to make money, made no provision for rate rises and expect other people to fund their lifestyle with increasing rents?

@jasflowers totally agree - the poster saying that has managed to sound both smug and with a complete lack of empathy and lumped anyone who dares moan about the current situation in the same pot -, - it’s not a matter of financial illiteracy in many cases - my son at 27 in London is very financially literate , but that doesn’t make it any easier if his landlord keeps sticking the very considerable rent up every year ( who by the way has no mortgage on either this place or his own place ) personally if you can get the supply up of social housing I would love to ban buy to let mortgages - far too many chancers saw it as a nice little business but had little if any underlying capital to look after places, allow for voids -

Yes, the UK govt needs to get on with building Council Housing & provide people who cannot afford a house, with an alternative.

However, much like so many other things, there is no money.

There's a no win situation with housing. Often, social housing is for life so we have older generations living on their own because their kids have grown up and left and they may be widowed occupying say, a 3 bedroomed house. It's their home. Or they bought it under the right to buy scheme. At the other end of the generation there are young families who are eligible for social housing but can't get one because they are all full. Then people say build more houses. Where does the money come from to build these houses and where does the space come from to put the houses? Do we also build more schools because the space where the houses could be built may not be close enough to the existing schools?

Again, this just proves you lack economic understanding. Most businesses and industries rely heavily on credit. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, especially when the business has high start up costs and needs to purchase expensive assets. When interest rates rise then assuming that the business isn't operating with a huge profit margin then this puts enormous pressure on the business and the business will either go out of business or pass on the cost to the end consumer.
I have explained before that many landlords have interest only mortgages so your assertions that they end up fully owning the asset isn't even right.

Your last paragraph is so ridiculously naive. Very few people in this country will invest their money into something that doesn't make a profit. Most people aren't rich enough to not have their money work for them. Even people that think that they don't do this often have a pension where the money is invested in a way that is profitable so most of us are investors even if we don't realise this. Without the compound growth achieved then very very few people could ever afford to retire. Profit isn't intrinsically morally wrong. You need to get off your high horse! It's all very well berating Landlords but ultimately there are millions of people that rely on them for housing. If they start flooding out of the market then this will detriment a great many people and cause a huge headache for overstretched councils up and down the country. The real victims will never be the Landlords but the tenants so be very very careful what you wish for.

I don’t think you can compare the price of a rental to the price of a loaf of bred.

Expensive sourdough loaves don’t impact people’s ability to get on the property ladder. Expensive rent does.

And for most people a bad supermarket will have little impact. A bad landlord is a terrible experience.

You can't suggest that it's not about financial literacy and then post absolute nonsense like this. Do you actually think that any government could ever increase the supply of SH enough to eradicate the need for BTL landlords? Are you aware of the country's finances? Do you think they could just miraculously buy up loads of housing stock for basically nothing or build a load of houses for free and not pay for any land, skilled labour or materials? There is absolutely realistic no economic lever that the state could use to enact such a mad plan and yet the belief that this is possible is what stops us actually working towards a viable solution that could make a difference.

Enforcing regulation and actually supporting landlords to improve would be preferential and infinitely more workable. We should be encouraging high quality landlords into the market and incentivising them to invest in properties that people actually want to live in. Not looking to the State yet again to meet ever single aspect of people's lives. They are already financially crippled trying to do what they currently do, let alone expanding further.

Plays the smallest violin

This is exactly what the OP is referring to, people blame landlords for turning renting homes into a business but no one questions other individuals/companies that actually make huge profits from people's basic needs. I don't think landlords are looking for sympathy as much as tenants look for rents that are lower than what it would cost them to buy a house... everything is going up in cost, and resources are finite so not an easy to solve even if all landlords will cease to exist tomorrow....

Once again, you miss the point and then hit out with a load of condescension.

If many LLs have taken out interest only mortgages, more fool them.

Many BTL LL's have had their fingers burnt in their vain attempt to make a fast buck.... why should anyone have sympathy?
i wouldn't for someone who started up any business with so little regard to potential rising costs.

Esp when so many don't look after their properties and do things like revenge evictions.

Trying to pretend they are some Alan Sugars in the making is ridiculous.

BUT having LLs leave the sector, with no alternative, isn't something i would want and this is why i was against the Tories renters bill and even more so, Labours version of it.
However according to one poster on here BTL mortgages are on the increase?

Govt just needs to fund councils properly, so they can afford to have an effective enforcement team, not introduce yet more regs that wont be enforced or costs passed on in the form of even higher rents.

You have a bizarre notion that anyone wants people to have some kind of special 'sympathy' for Landlords. I don't want anyone to feel sympathy but just to understand that they're not the enemy and are similar to other businesses in many ways. When a sector is struggling this will have wider implications for the society and the economy, especially when it's such a crucial sector. All businesses set out to make money. People that believe that Landlords are evil for doing this must believe that all essentials should be provided by the State or charities but this is completely unrealistic and unaffordable. No country in the world does this A sector like housing needs investment to make it workable and this means that we need to provide an incentive for investment.

Also why is taking out an interest only mortgage a case of "more fool them"? It isn't a bad business model as it allows Landlords to scale quickly and increase their portfolio. It's a completely sensible business model.

With such a bad experience, i am sure you've taken steps to not be in the same position your parents were and you own a home now? Landlords are a symptom of a system that is broken they are not the cause.

@Marshmallow4545 I wasn’t aware buying buy to lets was compulsory these days. !! You make it sound as if it was . I’ve got a decent business, I’m very aware of how credit works and when and when not to use it .your post smacks somewhat of Telegraph readers level of condescension that anyone renting is some kind of pleb - we rent in a very nice place and pay a lot to do so, could we afford to buy? Not where we live no , and age is now against us, could we buy somewhere else abroad or up north or whatever as a buy to let ? probably yes but at the moment we choose not to do so. There are many reasons people rent- personally if I had just divorced say , was moving areas and didn’t need the stability for kids schools, I would rent even if I had the cash , that’s just one example- please stop posting as if all renters are all a load of idiots who go round being feckless - there are plenty of feckless and financially illiterate homeowners out there too.

What are you talking about? I don't think renters are feckless or illiterate. I think though that people pretending that we can just build/buy loads of SH, that the private rental market would ever exist without an element of profit or that the cost of capital and interest rates won't be factored into rents and the cost of homeownership are financially illiterate.

The fact that you rent in an area you are happy with that you couldn't afford to buy in is arguably an example of the private rental sector doing what it is supposed to do.

Nail on head..... "allows them to scale quickly and increase their portfolio"

No i don't understand people who do this, esp when they then force their tenants to live in damp cold properties & then go for revenge evictions.

No one should have a portfolio of properties, thats where we have gone so wrong in the UK.

& yes all your posts are about sympathy and understanding for the poor LLs.

If the money spent on HA's, temp accommodation and rent support was, over time, diverted to building council housing, we could eventually reverse the privatisation of social housing.

That would lead to people having better lives, more money in their pockets, secure tenancies.

But so many are against this.

Even if you reversed the privatisation of SH, there still wouldn't be anywhere enough SH for all those that wanted the discounted rent and secure tenancy (i.e. everyone). To be honest, I think if SH was an option for everyone then there would be a much smaller private rental market and a significant reduction in people buying their own homes. People would feel secure enough in SH and would pocket the extra money to enjoy a better standard of life.

Also diverting money from an urgent need (i.e. housing people today) to a long term solution (building SH) is a lot easier said than done? What happens today while we are waiting for the housing to be build? Housing is expensive to build so for every house built you would be removing a hell of a lot of people's rent support and temporary accommodation for a time, how would people survive?

Having a property portfolio actually allows you to work at scale and therefore makes maintenance etc much easier. Have you noticed that most businesses attempt to scale up if they can? This is how we achieve economic growth and how people that are good at things get to use their skills and experiences effectively. Why should a good Landlord providing high quality property not scale? It's completely illogical to limit excellent landlords to one property each and this will ultimately lead to less property available, higher rents and less professionalism in the market.

Damp and revenge evictions are the result of bad Landlords. This has nothing to do with scale. You get good and bad Landlords at all sizes. We need to remove the bad ones from business.

I have never asked anyone to have sympathy for Landlords. Understanding, yes, that's a basic element of finding a solution. Posters like you suggesting that tenants are always buying houses for their landlords are part of the problem. Completely misleading and encouraging misunderstanding.

I have consistently said that things like renters rights bills, should not be introduced.

ATM there is no SH, so we have have the BTL LL, i'm dead against the Renters bill going through the Lords.

We need enforcement of current regs, not ones like a tenant can demand a perfectly good kitchen or bathroom replaced based on age not condition.

Its also not possible to build enough SH but we do need to get back to the levels we had before RTB.

You've also said Landlords shouldn't have a property portfolio though. So if by your admission we can't build enough SH for everyone, does that mean that everyone that can't access SH is stuck in private rental houses owned by amateur Landlords with no ability to scale? We are going to need an awful lot of them and pray that enough good people think it's worth all the time, hassle and money to get into the sector for a very limited opportunity to actually make any money

With lower level properties, I think rental and financial conditions have actually created a situation where only people willing to be slumlords can make it financially viable.

I used to feel a bit differently about this, but I've since had the experience of being a landlord for a short time, where we very quickly lost money because the tenant simply didn't pay. It took months to get her out, and had we been paying a mortgage on the place we'd have been hosed. As it was, we lost quite a bit on utilities. I'd never do it again, had this tenant damaged the property we would have been ruined financially, and this was a property that we essentially inherited, so no real capital investment. It's just too risky.

I've also worked more recently in a job where I am dealing a lot with people living in the very bottom tier of housing, or who are unhoused and that is the kind of housing they are trying to get into. There is a significant percentage of those people who are never going to reliably pay rent, but even if the state pays for them, they will destroy the property. One of my good friends was miserable for half a year because a person like this moved in across the hall, and quickly filled the tiny room with trash, and a cat, and the stench went throughout the whole house, to the point that the guy living downstairs moved out. They still haven't been able to rent the flat because the smell is under the floorboards, and I imagine in the end they will have to replace the flooring. This is after they renovated the flat after the last tenant left.

The only way they can make money off of these properties is to put nothing into them that isn't absolutely required/drug out of them, and hope the value of the land and property simply rises with inflation.

The "nice" inexpensive flats never rent to anyone questionable, they are looking for seniors often, with references, and ideally recommended personally by other good tenants. But there aren't enough even for everyone who would be a good tenant.

I was a landlord (1 property only). My first tenants were a young family who were lovely. I provided their mortgage provider with a glowing reference to help them get their mortgage. I refunded their entire deposit and gave them cash for a couple of carpets they replaced (original new carpets just clashed with their colour scheme).
The following few tenants were fine, no issues and I always worked with them when they wanted to leave to ensure they didn't pay 2 lots of rent in a month. Any problems were sorted within 24 hours or as soon as I could get a tradesman in.
One tenant had a tiny dog so I replaced the fencing to ensure the garden was dog safe.

The final tenant was dreadful, bone idle,always complaining, left the place in a state. I ended up doing a complete refurb of the property (£20,000). A truly dreadful experience.

I lived in the property myself for a couple of years myself then sold it on to a first time buyer.
My ethos was to provide a lovely home to someone who couldn't afford to buy. If I wouldn't live in a house there was no way I would expect anyone to pay to live in it.

If you think private landlords are bad then you are in for a shock once the banking sector takes over as landlords, they will solely want profits

For all those that want rid of private landlords - what is a viable, realistic solution?

I would happily sell my properties to the government for them to house my tenants - but the government can’t afford to buy or build as many properties as we need

Only allow registered businesses to be landlords? No chance, there is no longer enough profit in it for big businesses to consider it viable

Only allow 1 property per landlord - not enough people wanting to do it and that option reduces the number of properties owned by professional landlords who do a good job

Rich Philanthropists buy houses and rent at a loss - not very likely

A fairy magics houses out of thin air for people…

As a landlord I don’t want any sympathy, but equally I don’t want to be despised when I’m providing decent properties for my tenants and the need for private landlords is not going to go away

The problem for good LLs is there are plenty of shit ones.

No one should want private LLs to all sell up and go away, that would be a disaster.

We need to, over time, move from a private model of social housing to one of not for profit council housing and not HA's either, they simply don't work.

The money spent on the UC portion of housing benefit is huge, we simply cannot afford it.